On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 5:41 PM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 06:58:33AM +0200, Antonin Houska wrote: > > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > > I don't particularly want to remove the field, but we ought to > > > change or remove the comment. > > > > I'm not concerned about the existence of the field as well. The comment > just > > made me worried that I might be missing some fundamental concept. Thanks > for > > your opinion. > > I have developed the attached patch to address this. > I would suggest either dropping the word "potentially" or removing the sentence. I'm not a fan of this in-between position on principle even if I don't understand the full reality of the implementation. If leaving the word "potentially" is necessary it would be good to point out where the complexity is documented as a part of that - this header file probably not the best place to go into detail. David J.
